The “rape culture” myth

     A lot of people, mostly feminists, will tell you that we live in a “rape culture.”  This, of course, is nonsense.  We don’t build statues to rapists.  We send them to jail for the rest of their lives.  Society holds rape as so heinous that even being accused is enough to ruin a man’s life.  An innocent man who is lucky enough to prove his innocence is still ruined.

     So how do people come up with “rape culture”?  Well, on this blog, a different fantasy (pictured in fiction) was played up as “rape culture.”  That fantasy is one of abdication of personal responsibility.  These are books written by women, for women, that portray women being “forced” to have sex with characters they want to have sex with, but that they don’t want to be responsible for their desires.  Please note that the character is never an unattractive, out of work, “creep.”  There is a reason for this.  The works are not playing up rape.  They are playing up not being responsible.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “The “rape culture” myth

  1. >>We don’t build statues to rapists.

    Sure you do. We have many. Some very well known. There are also plenty of Statues for the believers of Naturalism.

    >>Society holds rape as so heinous that even being accused is enough to ruin a man’s life.

    “If there are no moral absolutes attributable to a Righteous and Holy God, then every man should be free to do what is right in their own mind…without an absolute moral law one cannot judge evil. If one cannot judge evil by an absolute code, then it is left to the will of the majority to decide what is right and what is wrong. Once that happens, the rights of the minority no longer exist.” ~EagleRising.com

    Without that standard, arbitrary subjectivity and appeals to popularity ensues. A society without God, is a society that has reasoning that is fallacious.

    “The atheist feels something is morally acceptable because it is practical (beneficial to the species). No other reason. So when the atheist condemns other’s actions which occurred in the past without having all the facts, he is stating it appears those actions may have been impractical, but he does not know for sure. And in the same vein, when the atheist condemns a current action as being impractical he cannot say for certain that such action will remain so in the future. That is the extent of the capability of his moral judgment.

    Atheists want to exercise moral judgment their beliefs do not afford them. All their beliefs afford them is temporary opinion. The sham of naturalists is that they will claim ‘morality’ is just a manifestation of evolution and yet then profess a moral outrage or pronounce a moral judgment as if it were not so.” ~ Thomas Bridges

    I digress though from the OP. I just find it ironic that non believers find they can judge others on morality. So my question is, in standing outside of the Christian worldview, why should anyone of differing opinion suffer under your definition of what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’? Just because you call your opinion moral? Your basis for determining right from wrong – stems from personal feeling, opinion or preference, after all.

  2. Dan:

         You digress significantly from the original post. However, you have made an accusation of rape against several people. Would you care to back that accusation up. And remember, naturalism is not rape. You have accused these men of coercing sexual activity.

  3. Jefferson raped his slaves, as an example. It’s well documented and cannot be denied with intellectual honesty. They have the children as evidence for it. I guess you have to ask yourself if it is rape if you have relations with a captive prisoner that you hold in your household. Is it “love” to have a slave, to keep someone against their will, to then bear children with said slave? How could you call it anything else, other then rape?

    Franklin was a knee jerk link as he owned slaves too. Not sure if he ever actually raped anyone. He was quite the ladies man, so maybe he raped their good nature and innocence, for his own lusts.

    As for Darwin, he is the pinocle of rape advocates with his Naturalism paradigm, and evolution push of survival of the fittest, seals get raped daily so nothing wrong, it’s “natural”. He is the father, and most responsible, for the breed of minds that believes morality is merely “value judgements”. As an example…

    “Then I learned that all moral judgments are ‘value judgments,’ that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself–what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself–that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any ‘reason’ to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring–the strength of character–to throw off its shackles…I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value judgment’ that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others?’ Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure that I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me–after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited.” –Ted Bundy, cited in Louis P. Pojman, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 3rd edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson, 1999), 31-32.

    Once again, without an absolute standard of morality you cannot discuss it outside of a Christian theistic worldview, my worldview, without reaching into my worldview to do so.

  4. Dan:

         “How could you call it anything else, other then rape?”

         I believe your “holy book” calls that “marriage.”

         You fail utterly with Darwin. Your task was to show that he raped anyone. Instead, you try to suggest he was an advocate and speak of seals. For Franklin, you give no evidence. For Jefferson we do have the conundrum that not all sex is rape. But I will grant plausible claim. But I will not grant proven.

         “Once again, without an absolute standard of morality you cannot discuss it outside of a Christian theistic worldview, my worldview, without reaching into my worldview to do so.”

         You are quite wrong. Morality is only indirectly related to my original post. My post speaks of what our current society endorses and the fact that it does not endorse rape. But, to say rape is wrong, you borrow from my worldview. Your religion has no objection to it. I have no use for a morality that says it’s okay to commit genocide “if god commands it.” But that is a topic for another post.

  5. >>You fail utterly with Darwin. Your task was to show that he raped anyone.

    He raped peoples minds from the truth, but I concede to your point of “physical” rape.

    >>My post speaks of what our current society endorses and the fact that it does not endorse rape.

    But that may change?

    >>But, to say rape is wrong, you borrow from my worldview.

    What worldview is that? Mine is a Christian Theist worldview, how about you?

    >>Your religion has no objection to it.

    Hogwash, and evidence you know nothing about my religion.

    >> I have no use for a morality that says it’s okay to commit genocide “if god commands it.”

    Are you absolutely certain it was “genocide”? If so, how are you certain? Also, as I already said, without an absolute standard of morality you cannot discuss things as wrong, like genocide. Once again, you’re reaching into my worldview.

    >>But that is a topic for another post.

    Fair enough. Just understand you have zero justification to say rape is wrong, without an appeal to the temporary opinions of an appeal to popularity.

  6. A culture where rape is trivialized, where rapists are excused, where rape victims are pressured to report rape as “rought sex”, or that they just made it up, and are shamed and bullied… that is a rape culture. And this is the culture we live in.

    Do you think that a lone woman raped in a dark alley “wanted” to have sex with her attacker? “Oh it’s okay, she really wanted and desired to be raped”? What kind of excuse is that? What a strange man you are…

  7. Kazeite:

         The culture that we live in locks men away for decades on the word of a false accuser (and no other evidence.) The mere accusation can ruin an innocent man’s life — even if he manages to prove his innocence. We do not live in a rape culture. We do not condone rape. We do not minimize rape. And sadly, we forget about innocent until proven guilty.

         And, of course you try to put words in my mouth.

  8. Merely restating your initial assertions doesn’t make them any more true, Pvblivs. It doesn’t change the facts. Haven’t you read latest stories? Haven’t you noticed how media almost always take the side of the rapists? Like, for example, in Steubenville rape case? So, yes, the media does “minimize” rape.

    You’d very much like to believe that every man merely accused of rape immediately goes behind the bars – sadly, the facts disagree.

    And how else am I supposed to interpret your last paragraph of your initial post? By placing word “forced” in quotation marks you kinda imply that you disagree with the blogger, that those women which “have sex with characters they want to have sex with” aren’t, in fact, forced to do so. If this wasn’t your intent, then, what was it?

  9.      “Haven’t you noticed how media almost always take the side of the rapists?”
         I’ve noticed just the reverse. I’ve noticed that the media will call the accused a rapist and will shield the accuser’s identity.

    http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Rape_Conviction_Dismissed_for_Bennie_Starks_After_20_Years_in_Prison.php

         “At a hearing Tuesday morning, Lake County prosecutors dismissed rape charges against an Illinois man who served 20 years for the 1986 crime. This is a reversal for the prosecutor’s office, which had threatened to retry Bennie Starks on the charges even though multiple rounds of DNA testing definitively excluded him as the perpetrator of the rape. The Innocence Project first obtained DNA test results suggesting Starks’ innocence in 2001.”

    http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/DNA_Evidence_Clears_Missouri_Man_in_Rape_Conviction.php

         “Robert Nelson was convicted of a 1983 home invasion and rape and sentenced to 70 years. Through the efforts of the Midwest Innocence Project, DNA testing was finally conducted on semen and hair evidence that was preserved since December 1983. Nelson began seeking post-conviction DNA testing in 2001, after the Missouri DNA access statute was passed. After determining the evidence was still available, he filed his first request in court without an attorney but it was denied.”

    http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/26_Years_After_Wrongful_Conviction_in_Detroit_Rape_Case__Walter_Swift_is_Released_from_Prison_and_Exonerated.php

         “Walter Swift, who was wrongfully convicted of a Detroit rape in 1982, is being exonerated today because a wide range of solid evidence shows he did not commit the crime for which he has served 26 years in prison, according to the Innocence Project, which represents Swift.”

         Does that satisfy you that I am not merely “restating” the fact that innocent men get thrown in jail for decades? These are all cases where the convictions were actually proven false. An innocent man who just can’t prove it is out of luck. Are you trying to suggest that they don’t exist?

         “You’d very much like to believe that every man merely accused of rape immediately goes behind the bars”
         No. There is a trial. In most cases, it’s for show. But even if the accused proves his innocence, he can forget about finding a good job. He will always carry the label “rapist.” It will be more difficult for him to find housing — unless that housing is in jail of course.
         I’m sure you would like me to believe that the media took the side of Strauss-Kahn and the Duke lacrosse players. Even in the case you mentioned, the media didn’t support the accused, Supposedly a choach tried to protect them in an effort to protect a winning season.

  10. Don’t you think that focusing exclusively on http://www.innocenceproject.org, which focuses on innocent people, is rather one-sided? I mean, you are trying to be fair here and look at both sides of the issue, right?

    Because even a brief Google search kinda proves the opposite:
    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/18/1732701/media-steubenville/
    “Stories about the case relied far too heavily on the public details about the defendants, 17-year-old Trent Mays and 16-year-old Ma’lik Richmond, to set up a sympathetic portrayal of two bright young football stars whose lives have been ruined by the criminal justice system.”
    (And yes, the media did support the accused in this case. Sorry.)

    So… why exactly are you ignoring that? Innocent men do get thrown into a jail, yes, but those men are a minority. It doesn’t change the fact that every two minutes someone in the US is sexually assaulted (http://rainn.org/statistics). If what you’re saying is true, prisons should be overflowing with alleged rapists.
    And yet, out of 100 rapists, 97% of them will walk free (http://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates). And you have no problem with that? None at all?

    Oh… and, have you noticed? In your three examples, all three men are black. So, it would appear that US not only condones rape culture, it’s also still racist.

  11. Kazeite:

         Don’t you think that focusing exclusively on http://www.innocenceproject.org, which focuses on innocent people, is rather one-sided?

         You claimed that I was merely restating my assertion without evidence that innocent men get thrown in jail for decades. Your claim was, basically, that it doesn’t happen. Cases handled by the innocence project are a quick way of confirming that it happens. However one-sided you think supporting examples are when you are sitting there saying “doesn’t happen,” they are quite fair to present.

         “So… why exactly are you ignoring that? Innocent men do get thrown into a jail, yes, but those men are a minority.”

         Now you’re making a bare assertion. The ones that successfully prove their innocence are a minority. But there is no reason to believe that all the wrongly convicted successfully prove their innocence. We do know that a great many continue to proclaim their innocence even though doing so makes them ineligible for parole. Obviously, there can be no statistics on how many of those are innocent but can’t prove it.

         “(And yes, the media did support the accused in this case. Sorry.)”

         So your saying that the media named the victim and shielded the identities of the accused? Exactly how do you think the media supported them? Was it because they called the defendants “the accused” rather than “the rapists” before there was even a trial? They weren’t calling the prosecution a “waste of taxpayer’s money.” They didn’t ponder about police “wasting time on trivial matters.” They did set up a fund to “help the defendants get through these trying times.”

         It is my experience that when feminists say we live in a “rape culture,” they mean the presumption of guilt is not strong enough.

         “And yet, out of 100 rapists, 97% of them will walk free ”

         There are two statistics (relevant to this proposition) that cannot be measured in any meaningful sense — the number of unreported rapes, and the number of false accusations. Unless someone happened to be recording at the time, there is generally no evidence of whether a rape happened or not. You have rare cases where a charge is proven true or proven false and then you ask if I’m “okay” with letting defendants walk in the majority of cases where we really have no basis for making a determination (you are presuming guilt in all cases.) Well, YES, I am okay with releasing the defendant when we can’t tell one way or the other. It’s called a presumption of innocence. I’m a big believer in a presumption of innocence. I don’t like the thought of convicting innocent people.

  12. ” You claimed that I was merely restating my assertion without evidence that innocent men get thrown in jail for decades. Your claim was, basically, that it doesn’t happen.”

    No, my claim at the time was that you haven’t provided any evidence of your claims. Right now, all you seem to have is anecdotal evidence and three black men accused of rape.

    “Now you’re making a bare assertion. The ones that successfully prove their innocence are a minority. But there is no reason to believe that all the wrongly convicted successfully prove their innocence.”

    Now you’re arguing for inefficient, clumsy justice system. Really now?

    “So your saying that the media named the victim and shielded the identities of the accused?”
    No, I don’t. What? “Sympathetic portrayal of two bright young football stars” – I would think that this sentence is pretty clear. Why are you setting a strawman here?

    ” It is my experience that when feminists say we live in a “rape culture,” they mean the presumption of guilt is not strong enough.”

    In my experience, when feminists say we live in a “rape culture,” they mean that prevailing attitudes and practices normalize, excuse, tolerate, and even condone rape.

    If I was a woman, I wouldn’t want to get raped. Would you?

    “There are two statistics (relevant to this proposition) that cannot be measured in any meaningful sense — the number of unreported rapes, and the number of false accusations. Unless someone happened to be recording at the time, there is generally no evidence of whether a rape happened or not.”
    Now that is just silly claim. You are an intelligent man, obviously, and yet you cannot think of any evidence left behind by a man who commited a rape, even if there was no eyewitness? Like, say, external and internal trauma? All those women reporting a rape cannot be masochists, right?

    ” You have rare cases where a charge is proven true or proven false and then you ask if I’m “okay” with letting defendants walk in the majority of cases where we really have no basis for making a determination (you are presuming guilt in all cases.)”

    No, you’re not. What you are okay with is a system which makes women unwilling to report a rape and which doesn’t even prosecute most of the reported cases. Presumption of innocence doesn’t really enter into the equation here.

    And seeing how you have started ignoring parts of my post and setting strawmen, it would appear that you don’t really want to be convinced. Okay then. I had my shot, obviously failed at convincing you… well, this is the internet, after all.

  13.      “Right now, all you seem to have is anecdotal evidence and three black men accused of rape.”
         Three men wrongly convicted and jailed, on accusation alone, for decades. I could get more examples. But, seriously, you would just go from “all you have is” to “too long, didn’t read.”
         “In my experience, when feminists say we live in a ;rape culture,’ they mean that prevailing attitudes and practices normalize, excuse, tolerate, and even condone rape.”
         There are no prevailing attitudes and practices that normalize, excuse, tolerate, or condone rape. But what feminists cite is that “not enough” men get convicted. And that can only mean that the presumption of guilt, in their eyes, is not strong enough.
         “No, you’re not. What you are okay with is…”
         And you proceed to deliver a strawman. Rather ironic that you accused me of strawmanning you and couldn’t even identify what the strawman was. Previously, I acted under the assumption that you were being honest with me. That is now clearly not the case.
         The reality is that in most cases where a rape is claimed, there is no evidence. Most people do not have their encounters on video. You find instances of not being convinced that a rape happened and call them “excusing rape.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s